A half-silly, half-deep question on freedom of movement [Archive]

King of Nowhere

2021-10-30, 12:16 PM

Scientists aren't "unclear" wether glass is a solid or a liquid. They are solidly :smallbiggrin: on the side of solid.

The idea that glass is liquid comes from old church windows being thicker at the base. That is a result of the way sheets of glass are manufactured: you take a glob of glowing glass and spin it around a pole until you've got a disc, which is logically thinner at the outside, and then cut it into pieces. The middle piece, where the pole is, can't be used if you want to actually look through. If you now buildd in such a piece, it's logical to put the thicker side at the base to reduce tension from the weight. Nothing to do with "glass flowing down".

Scientists did calculate that you "could" see glass flow down if you were willing to watch it for circa a hundred billion years. Don't think that's enough to classiy it as "liquid".

i know all that, but that's not the reason glass can be considered a liquid.
it's because glass does not have its atoms arranged in a crystalline structure, like most other solids; they are instead disorderly, like the atoms in a liquid.
Also, in going from solid to liquid you have a melting point, very clear and well-defined. And you have a heat of fusion and an enthropy of fusion. All things you don't have with glass and other amorphous solids; amorphous solids have a range of softening.

now, from an engineering and practical point of view, everybody agrees glass behaves like a solid. But from a molecular and physico-chemical point of view, it behaves like a liquid. In which category it is classified is purely a matter of semantics; we all know exactly what glass is, and it has some properties of solids and some properties of liquid, we are only arguing on which tag we should stick on it. iirc, they did create the new category of "amorphous solids" (which was its informal definition before they made it official) just to deal with those cases.

As far as "flowing", the distinction between solid and liquid is blurred. we can see in the mountain ranges solids that flowed like liquids, over very long times. So, we could give any solid a viscosity value, just like it was a liquid. But those rocks that make mountains, those rocks do have a crystal structure, and are therefore undeniably solids.

Tzardok

2021-10-30, 12:33 PM

i
it's because glass does not have its atoms arranged in a crystalline structure, like most other solids; they are instead disorderly, like the atoms in a liquid.
Also, in going from solid to liquid you have a melting point, very clear and well-defined. And you have a heat of fusion and an enthropy of fusion. All things you don't have with glass and other amorphous solids; amorphous solids have a range of softening.

I would disagree with the notion that "most solids" have a crystalline structure. Wood and starch don't have one. There are amorphous configurations of sulphur and ice. And so on. I would assume that "amorphous solid" is simply a subcategory of "solid".

King of Nowhere

2021-10-30, 01:25 PM

I would disagree with the notion that "most solids" have a crystalline structure. Wood and starch don't have one. There are amorphous configurations of sulphur and ice. And so on. I would assume that "amorphous solid" is simply a subcategory of "solid".

well, in wood the cellulose chains are arranged in a regular network, and i assume the same goes for starch. anyway, those are complex organic biopolimers, with almost all solids made of simple molecules have a tridimensional cristalline lattice.
anyway, while I rejoice in having found a fellow man of science, this tangent is detracting from the argument i wanted to make about freedom of movement.

So, let's take something less controversial: pitch. Pitch is enough of a liquid to flow in a human lifetime, there was the famous experiment where they left a sample over a funnel for 70 years and it made four drops (or something like that) in that time. so, would freedom of movement allow you to swim through pitch? how about something somewhat more viscous than pitch, but less than glass? how about sand, snow and other similar piles of dusts that can behave liquid-like? and why? how would the spell differentiate between a solid and a liquid in corner cases?

Eurus

2021-10-30, 01:40 PM

People can't even agree on whether freedom of movement works on hold person, let alone whether it lets you swim through pitch. :smallamused:

Unfortunately, the spell just isn't worded very clearly, and even if you're trying to stick as closely to a literal RAW as possible there are a few ways you could go with it.

Tzardok

2021-10-30, 04:47 PM

I would argue that you shouldn't look at Freedom of Movement scientifically, but conceptually. We would need a proper concept that encapsulates what the spell does, for example "nothing can hold me", and apply that. Quicksand and magic paralyzation and entangling vines hold you, but a stone wall doesn't. It may hinder you, or it may in the figurative sense hold you if it is part of a prison cell, but it doesn't properly hold you until you are in it, for example because a wizard made it flow around you to grip you.

In short, apply intuition. If your intuition says that it should it work, it works. If you have to search for justifications, it doesn't.

Darg

2021-10-30, 09:10 PM

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

If we want to be specific, moving normally underwater only matters when you have a surface to stand on.

I personally see it as being limited by your mode of movement. You can walk, run, jump, and fall like normal if you don't try to swim. It would not let you fly as that is a different movement type that requires air.

FoM wouldn't let you walk up or through a wall just because it impedes movement. It seems obvious to me that it is only referencing the mechanical ability to make move actions and anything that modifies your speed. Stunned? You can pick up your weapon and attack (doesn't prevent the condition, it only lets you act when you normally wouldn't). Moving through difficult terrain? It doesn't cost you extra movement. Swimming? You swim like you normally would with a skill check, but you aren't penalized for swinging a weapon. In this way it wouldn't be applicable to environments/terrains not categorized without house ruling like you would if you wanted to swim in a vat of oil.

With that being the case I would argue that being in a cube of ooze is completely different from only being covered in ooze in the amount of resistance you have to get through. If you believe it could be swam through with increased DCs and penalties then FoM should only reduce those instead of remove them. Water<Ooze<Liquifaction<=Magma<Earth.

Gruftzwerg

2021-10-30, 10:57 PM

Lets break the spell into pieces and lets see what we find out.

1. The first part of the effect lets you use your movement without being hampered (no penalties) in any way. Note that "movement" is defined in 3.5 and that only "your movement modes" are effected. If you don't have a burrow speed, you still can't burrow (or walk trough earth).

2. The second part gives you a special exception that in addition you may move freely underwater:

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.
The exception created is sole for "underwater" and doesn't become a general rule for all liquids! (Specific Trumps General! It doesn't become general!)
And if you really think about it, this rule part ain't even an exception. It's a friendly reminder that most creatures have a Swim-speed (even if not shown on their stat block; this is due to the "swim skill" being usable with 0 ranks).

Vaern

2021-10-30, 11:11 PM

Freedom of movement lets you move freely regardless of external conditions that would impede movement.

Actually, Freedom of Movement lets you move freely regardless of magic that would impede movement.
It also lets you automatically succeed on checks to escape or resist grapples and pins.
You can also move normally in water.

That's all it does. It doesn't indicate that it does anything against mundaine impedements, like letting you ignore rough terrain. It wouldn't let you move more easily through, for example, a pool of acid, any more than Water Breathing would give you the ability to breathe acid; after all, it's acid, not water.

People can't even agree on whether freedom of movement works on hold person, let alone whether it lets you swim through pitch. :smallamused:

Considering that Freedom of Movement lets you ignore magic effects that would usually impede movement including paralysis and Hold Person is a magic effect that impedes movement via paralysis, I can't imagine what sort of argument could be brought to the table to prevent it from working.
Then again, I've made suggestions including swaths of rules citation showing said suggestion to be 100% RAW legal only to have someone come along and say, "nah, it just doesn't work that way," with either no evidence to back up their baseless claim or simply misquoting or misreading one of the same rules that I cited which actually supports my initial argument.

InvisibleBison

2021-10-30, 11:41 PM

1. The first part of the effect lets you use your movement without being hampered (no penalties) in any way. Note that "movement" is defined in 3.5 and that only "your movement modes" are effected. If you don't have a burrow speed, you still can't burrow (or walk trough earth).

This is not correct. For one thing, you missed the part where the spell also says you can attack normally. But more importantly, I don't see any reason to think freedom of movement is specifically referring to moving from one square to another when it says it lets the subject "move [...] normally". As far as I know, the rules never say that the word "move" is only ever used to reference moving from one square to another; the fact that a move action can be used for all sorts of non-movement things is evidence against that interpretation.

most creatures have a Swim-speed (even if not shown on their stat block; this is due to the "swim skill" being usable with 0 ranks).

This is also not correct. Both the rules for swim speeds (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#swim) and for the swim skill (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/swim.htm) make it quite clear that having a swim speed is a special ability above and beyond being able to make swim checks.

Remuko

2021-10-30, 11:53 PM

Actually, Freedom of Movement lets you move freely regardless of magic that would impede movement.

That's all it does. It doesn't indicate that it does anything against mundaine impedements, like letting you ignore rough terrain. It wouldn't let you move more easily through, for example, a pool of acid, any more than Water Breathing would give you the ability to breathe acid; after all, it's acid, not water.

Nah it says you can move and attack normally for the duration of the spell. It doesn't say or even imply that its only against magic.

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement

Gruftzwerg

2021-10-31, 02:02 AM

This is not correct. For one thing, you missed the part where the spell also says you can attack normally. But more importantly, I don't see any reason to think freedom of movement is specifically referring to moving from one square to another when it says it lets the subject "move [...] normally". As far as I know, the rules never say that the word "move" is only ever used to reference moving from one square to another; the fact that a move action can be used for all sorts of non-movement things is evidence against that interpretation.
Yeah sorry for ignoring the attack part. I sole focused on the "movement" part of the discussion. My bad.

But, imho "move" always refers to "movement" in 3.5 and not to "physical actions" overall. A good example of this is the paralysis rule:

A paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any physical action.
It doesn't say ".. cannot move and thus not speak or take physical actions", which would confirm that those are all part of "move/moving". They are separate action categories for 3.5 mechanically.

This is also not correct. Both the rules for swim speeds (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#swim) and for the swim skill (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/swim.htm) make it quite clear that having a swim speed is a special ability above and beyond being able to make swim checks.

Sorry, that was really miss-worded. I meant that most creatures can already move through water (aka as swimming^^) due to the swim skill. So the 2nd part is only a friendly reminder and does't add anything that the first part of the spell did already give you. With the swim skill you have hampered movement when moving through water. Freedom of Movement gets rid of the movement penalties (and attack penalties) while being in water. Nothing changed here.

King of Nowhere

2021-10-31, 07:59 AM

Actually, Freedom of Movement lets you move freely regardless of magic that would impede movement.
It also lets you automatically succeed on checks to escape or resist grapples and pins.
You can also move normally in water.

That's all it does. It doesn't indicate that it does anything against mundaine impedements, like letting you ignore rough terrain.

wait, so a tanglefoot bag would work normally against FoM? i always assumed the spell would cover that too.

in fact, the spell is poorly worded. first it says that you can "move and attack normally" (it does not mention spellcasting or other stuff, one wanting to find raw loopholes could also mention that), and then it only mentions magic.

I always envisioned the spell as making you slick and rubbery, because how else can you visualize "always escapes grapples"? But the spell as written does nothing if you are tied in ropes. what's the difference? if you are slick and rubbery, you can escape ropes as easily as you can escape grapples. and if it's not the case, how does FoM actually work?

Eurus

2021-10-31, 09:52 AM

Considering that Freedom of Movement lets you ignore magic effects that would usually impede movement including paralysis and Hold Person is a magic effect that impedes movement via paralysis, I can't imagine what sort of argument could be brought to the table to prevent it from working.
Then again, I've made suggestions including swaths of rules citation showing said suggestion to be 100% RAW legal only to have someone come along and say, "nah, it just doesn't work that way," with either no evidence to back up their baseless claim or simply misquoting or misreading one of the same rules that I cited which actually supports my initial argument.

I'm inclined to agree with you that it works, but the question is a little more interesting than it sounds at first. Since Hold Person is a compulsion effect, not a physical restraint, does Freedom of Movement block all compulsion effects that would stop you from moving? What about if someone casts Dominate Person and tells you to stop moving? You are, arguably, paralyzed at that point, or at least a DM could easily rule it that way.

I tend to be really permissive with Freedom of Movement anyway, I recently let a player use it to temporarily counteract petrification... I think it's a fairly important spell, since 3.5 has so many effects that can completely debilitate a creature with ease. It's just a shame that it makes grappling so hard.

Doctor Despair

2021-10-31, 12:41 PM

It's just a shame that it makes grappling so hard.

To grapple through FoM, you can:

* Wildshape into a mimic! The Adhesive ability lets you automatically grapple opponents with no check, so it is irrelevant if they would succeed on the check.

* Use Crush to render them pinned! Again, there is no grapple check to resist. It is only usable on opponents three size categories smaller than you, so ymmv.

* Use Ranged Pin to render them pinned! Again, no check, but arguably this may not confer the "pinned" condition, so ymmv depending on DM discretion.

See "The Long Arm of the Law" in my sig for more detailed discussion of these methods.

Darg

2021-10-31, 09:06 PM

Sorry, that was really miss-worded. I meant that most creatures can already move through water (aka as swimming^^) due to the swim skill. So the 2nd part is only a friendly reminder and does't add anything that the first part of the spell did already give you. With the swim skill you have hampered movement when moving through water. Freedom of Movement gets rid of the movement penalties (and attack penalties) while being in water. Nothing changed here.

Swimming through the use of the swim skill is not a penalty though. Nor does FoM specify you are able to swim at your speed. Because of that, it would be more probable that the intention is that you are able to move as on land underwater on a lake bed or underwater temple. Normal movement does not confer the ability to walk in any vertical manner without material support such as stairs or a ramp.

To grapple through FoM, you can:

* Wildshape into a mimic! The Adhesive ability lets you automatically grapple opponents with no check, so it is irrelevant if they would succeed on the check.

* Use Crush to render them pinned! Again, there is no grapple check to resist. It is only usable on opponents three size categories smaller than you, so ymmv.

* Use Ranged Pin to render them pinned! Again, no check, but arguably this may not confer the "pinned" condition, so ymmv depending on DM discretion.

See "The Long Arm of the Law" in my sig for more detailed discussion of these methods.

A Stirge grapples the target with just a touch attack and gains a +12 bonus to checks.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-01, 12:03 AM

Swimming through the use of the swim skill is not a penalty though. Nor does FoM specify you are able to swim at your speed. Because of that, it would be more probable that the intention is that you are able to move as on land underwater on a lake bed or underwater temple. Normal movement does not confer the ability to walk in any vertical manner without material support such as stairs or a ramp.

Lets have a look at the F.A.Q. here (regarding designer intention/RAI):

"Q: What happens when a character who has received a
freedom of movement spell jumps or falls into water? My
DM seems to think that the character falls straight through
the water and goes “splat” on the bottom. My DM explains
that the spell eliminates all water resistance, which prevents
the character from swimming or floating.
A: While the DM is always right, he’s followed a faulty line of
reasoning here. It’s always a bad idea to use scientific—or
pseudoscientific—reasoning to adjudicate spells. In this case,
your DM has erroneously supposed that water resistance has
something to do with buoyancy. Buoyancy depends on the
water literally pushing something up toward the surface, and a
freedom of movement spell doesn’t prevent that any more than
it prevents a floor from pushing up against a character’s feet
and keeping him from falling through it. (You might not be in
the habit of thinking of floors as “pushing” anything, but that is
the way modern physics describes any object or body resting
on any surface; the object pushes down and the surface pushes
back with equal force.)
In any case, the freedom of movement spell (and its cousin
from earlier editions, the free action spell) has nothing to do
with eliminating water resistance or friction; it allows normal
movement and attacks even under conditions in which normal
movement and attacks are not possible, such as underwater or
when webbed, held, or entangled. Exactly how the spell
accomplishes that is unrevealed—that’s what makes it magic.
Your DM would have been on firmer ground (as it were) if he
had claimed that falling is a form of “normal movement” that
water usually prevents. That, however, is not the case. “Normal
movement” in water is swimming or walking along the bottom.
When a character under a freedom of movement effect enters
water, he makes a Swim check; if he fails, he cannot move, and
he sinks if he fails by 5 or more. Note that failing to make
progress or sinking are both “normal movement” in this
instance."
I colored the important parts.

F.A.Q. backs up my interpretation. You basically ignore anything that could reduce or stop your movement (or your ability to attack). If you ain't have a swim speed, you need to make use of the swim skill and pass the roll to swim at your full speed instead of 1/4 of your regular movement speed. If you fail the check (by 5 or more) you first sink (at your full speed) down to the bottom and can there move on the ground at your full speed.

gijoemike

2021-11-01, 04:13 PM

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

The above is the text of Freedom of Movement spell from the SRD. Let's dissect this.

spell enables you or creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell.....

This is open ended vague language that is going to lead us to the path of disaster. From this line one may assume hold person, stun effects, and grapples would all be game. I added emphases to normally.

even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.

Ok, this clause explicitly affects magic but only the spells that restrict movement. I would conjecture that move and attack really means movement modes.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater
specifically calls out underwater as the special liquid affected here.

even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

talking about the ability to move around and attack while underwater. Also informs user FoM isn't water breathing.

Conclusion:
the single most important word is normally. One cannot move through glass, pitch, sand, or a concrete wall under normal situations. FoM doesn't assist in those matters. But one could move through a spiders web, a thorny bush, escape from ropes, a sleeper hold, or a large body of water just slower and one could easily become caught up in the object.

Stun: You aren't immune to the affect of losing your turn. If stun reduced your move to 0 ft per turn then FoM would restore it to normal.
Petrification: you don't get a turn. same as stun in this case.
Wall of Iron//force in a cube: Cannot walk through a solid wall. Not any help.

Sanity test: Could some skill check allow you move around in or get out of this material? Then FoM lets you do it.

InvisibleBison

2021-11-01, 04:37 PM

I would conjecture that move and attack really means movement modes.

I don't think this is a viable interpretation of the spell. If it's correct, then a character subject to both freedom of movement and some sort of immobilization effect that FoM negates can't demonstrate a sword move - that is, do the exact same physical motions as they would to make an attack, just without an enemy. How is FoM able to tell the difference between a demonstration and an actual attack? And what happens if the character is fighting an invisible opponent whose location he hasn't pinpointed, and he attacks into a square that turns out to not be the square the creature is in? He's not actually attacking anything, as no attack roll is made, but he doesn't know that. Would FoM let him move in this situation or not? Is the spell able to tell whether or not the character is doing something that might actually hit an enemy or not and choosing to suppress or not suppress the immobilization effect accordingly? I think it would be better to interpret the spell as enabling any sort of physical motion and bypass all of these issues.

King of Nowhere

2021-11-01, 06:31 PM

Lets have a look at the F.A.Q. here (regarding designer intention/RAI):

"Q: What happens when a character who has received a
freedom of movement spell jumps or falls into water? My
DM seems to think that the character falls straight through
the water and goes “splat” on the bottom. My DM explains
that the spell eliminates all water resistance, which prevents
the character from swimming or floating.
A: While the DM is always right, he’s followed a faulty line of
reasoning here. It’s always a bad idea to use scientific—or
pseudoscientific—reasoning to adjudicate spells."

I colored the important parts.

F.A.Q. backs up my interpretation. You basically ignore anything that could reduce or stop your movement (or your ability to attack). If you ain't have a swim speed, you need to make use of the swim skill and pass the roll to swim at your full speed instead of 1/4 of your regular movement speed. If you fail the check (by 5 or more) you first sink (at your full speed) down to the bottom and can there move on the ground at your full speed.
i left only the part that interests me. or rather, the part that does not interest me. I'm not interested in a rules FAQ, and I'm not interested in running a gamist world where stuff obeys abstract rules and makes no physical sense. If I did, i would not pretend to be playing a real character in a real world. I mean, in chess you get that kind of rules. Why the pawn can't just move back? but chess is an abstract game, and it's not supposed to represent real world except in the broadest sense. if i was pretending that the pawn is really a foot soldier, then there would be no reason it could not move backwards.

What I am interested is taking a spell as described and trying to figure out, from a physical -scientific - point of view, what it would actually do.

Vaern

2021-11-01, 06:54 PM

I'm inclined to agree with you that it works, but the question is a little more interesting than it sounds at first. Since Hold Person is a compulsion effect, not a physical restraint, does Freedom of Movement block all compulsion effects that would stop you from moving? What about if someone casts Dominate Person and tells you to stop moving? You are, arguably, paralyzed at that point, or at least a DM could easily rule it that way.

Alright, that is an interesting point.
RAW, Hold Person says you can't move and hits you with the paralysis status effect, which Freedom of Movement protects against.
RAI, I'd argue that Dominate Person does not affect your movement in a way that Freedom of Movement would prevent. Your movement isn't inhibited or prevented. You can still move normally - the caveat is that someone else can control that movement for you. A character that is told to stand still is technically no more immobilized or paralyzed than a character who has simply chosen not to move. As far as I can tell Freedom of Movement doesn't do anything to prevent forced movement.

Tzardok

2021-11-01, 07:03 PM

i left only the part that interests me. or rather, the part that does not interest me. I'm not interested in a rules FAQ, and I'm not interested in running a gamist world where stuff obeys abstract rules and makes no physical sense. If I did, i would not pretend to be playing a real character in a real world. I mean, in chess you get that kind of rules. Why the pawn can't just move back? but chess is an abstract game, and it's not supposed to represent real world except in the broadest sense. if i was pretending that the pawn is really a foot soldier, then there would be no reason it could not move backwards.

What I am interested is taking a spell as described and trying to figure out, from a physical -scientific - point of view, what it would actually do.

I am not sure that arguing with our universe's physical laws is in any way useful. This is a world where souls are real and you can interact with them; where Fire, Water, Earth and Air are literally the building blocks from which reality is made of; where entropy takes a tangible (or at least shapeable) form as negative energy.
Yes, the physical laws look similiar on the surface, but the moment the supernatural is added, going by "that's how it would work IRL" loses its meaning.

Darg

2021-11-01, 08:00 PM

F.A.Q. backs up my interpretation. You basically ignore anything that could reduce or stop your movement (or your ability to attack). If you ain't have a swim speed, you need to make use of the swim skill and pass the roll to swim at your full speed instead of 1/4 of your regular movement speed. If you fail the check (by 5 or more) you first sink (at your full speed) down to the bottom and can there move on the ground at your full speed.

The FAQ entry says nothing about swimming at your regular speed. All it says is that you make a swim check or walk along the bottom. Nothing more or less. The only thing the FAQ disagreed with me about is jumping underwater.

In any case, the freedom of movement spell (and its cousin
from earlier editions, the free action spell) has nothing to do
with eliminating water resistance or friction

If anything, it supports moving at the speed your normal swim check allows you to.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-01, 09:44 PM

I don't think this is a viable interpretation of the spell. If it's correct, then a character subject to both freedom of movement and some sort of immobilization effect that FoM negates can't demonstrate a sword move - that is, do the exact same physical motions as they would to make an attack, just without an enemy. How is FoM able to tell the difference between a demonstration and an actual attack? And what happens if the character is fighting an invisible opponent whose location he hasn't pinpointed, and he attacks into a square that turns out to not be the square the creature is in? He's not actually attacking anything, as no attack roll is made, but he doesn't know that. Would FoM let him move in this situation or not? Is the spell able to tell whether or not the character is doing something that might actually hit an enemy or not and choosing to suppress or not suppress the immobilization effect accordingly? I think it would be better to interpret the spell as enabling any sort of physical motion and bypass all of these issues.
Imho all chases you have described require an attack roll:

Demonstration - needs a virtual target AC that reflects the difficulty of the demonstration
Trying to attack Invisible creature in the wrong emty square - Still requires an attack roll (vs nothing), because otherwise the attacker would find out that the enemy is not there. Therefore the attack roll is required here.

i left only the part that interests me. or rather, the part that does not interest me. I'm not interested in a rules FAQ, and I'm not interested in running a gamist world where stuff obeys abstract rules and makes no physical sense. If I did, i would not pretend to be playing a real character in a real world. I mean, in chess you get that kind of rules. Why the pawn can't just move back? but chess is an abstract game, and it's not supposed to represent real world except in the broadest sense. if i was pretending that the pawn is really a foot soldier, then there would be no reason it could not move backwards.

What I am interested is taking a spell as described and trying to figure out, from a physical -scientific - point of view, what it would actually do.
The "real" scientific point of view is: There is NO MAGIC! ^^
So we have to rely on pseudo-fictional-science. And that depends on the rules given in that fictional scenario. Which in our chase would be the RAW interpretation of the spell text.

And funny that while you claim an interest for an scientific explanation, that you excluded those parts of the F.A.Q. that I quoted. Was it not satisfying enough?^^

The FAQ entry says nothing about swimming at your regular speed. All it says is that you make a swim check or walk along the bottom. Nothing more or less. The only thing the FAQ disagreed with me about is jumping underwater.

If anything, it supports moving at the speed your normal swim check allows you to.
The FAQ says:

it allows normal movement and attacks even under conditions in which normal movement and attacks are not possible, such as underwater or when webbed, held, or entangled.
Are you implying that with FoM that you may only move at the reduced speed when "underwater, webbed, or entangled" and not at full speed? Because even the actual spell text is identical for both parts (both paragraphs sole use "move"). That would be a very restrictive interpretation of FoM.. but I could see a point for it.. hmm.... let me think about it while I wait for your response to confirm if I did understand you correct here..

edit: @Darg
That would further imply that you could walk at the ground underwater at full speed while only be allowed to swim at reduced speed.. o.0
Sorry I'm already loosing faith in this interpretation..*help*me*out*^^

InvisibleBison

2021-11-02, 08:19 AM

Demonstration - needs a virtual target AC that reflects the difficulty of the demonstration

Demonstrating your skill with a weapon calls for a Peform (weapon drill) check, not an attack roll.

Trying to attack Invisible creature in the wrong emty square - Still requires an attack roll (vs nothing), because otherwise the attacker would find out that the enemy is not there. Therefore the attack roll is required here.

You might have a point here. The rules for attacking an invisible creature whose location you haven't pinpointed are a bit unclear, but it does seem likely that you're supposed to make an attack roll.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-02, 09:15 AM

Demonstrating your skill with a weapon calls for a Peform (weapon drill) check, not an attack roll.

You might have a point here. The rules for attacking an invisible creature whose location you haven't pinpointed are a bit unclear, but it does seem likely that you're supposed to make an attack roll.

lol, didn't know about the perform (weapon drill) check.. o.0

But that's really silly now...

When you try to attack an invisible creature, you are trying to imagine the creature to attack, you have to do an attack roll.

But if you imagine an enemy for an demonstration, you have to make a perform roll... -.-
What the...

In both chases you are imagining a creature and attack "visually" nothing/air. But you have 2 completely different rolls.

Tzardok

2021-11-02, 10:28 AM

I think it depends on what you do. Perform (weapondrill) is for when you want to look impressive or entertain. If you want to demonstrate a useful attack, for example to teach it, an attack roll would be better. It's the difference between demonstrating a quick thrust and twirling your sword around your upper body while cuting thrown fruit.

Jay R

2021-11-02, 10:49 PM

It doesn't matter what most scientists think; they don't think spells work at all. Most wizards on my world think glass is a solid, so Freedom of Movement doesn't let people walk through it.

In short, in my world, things that act like liquids, act like liquids. Things that act like solids, act like solids.

Ask your DM about her world.

King of Nowhere

2021-11-03, 05:58 PM

I am not sure that arguing with our universe's physical laws is in any way useful. This is a world where souls are real and you can interact with them; where Fire, Water, Earth and Air are literally the building blocks from which reality is made of; where entropy takes a tangible (or at least shapeable) form as negative energy.
Yes, the physical laws look similiar on the surface, but the moment the supernatural is added, going by "that's how it would work IRL" loses its meaning.

- putting aside that I do like when i can give some pseudoscientific explanations for how stuff works and that it makes for the deeper and more immersive worldbuilding if you can establish some kind of underlying principle for how magic works -
- putting also aside that i am a great fan of Brandon Sanderson and the way he mixes magic with science to make magic systems that are believable, and if Sanderson is one of the most popular fantasy writers of this generation it means there must be a lot of people who like that kind of approach -

but how would you describe FoM? you try to grab an enemy protected by it, and they... do what?
do they become super slick, their arm sliding frictionless through your grab? do their hand deform like it's made of rubber to get out of manacles? what would be a good description of what's happening?

this is for the purpose of trying to add depth to the world. whenever you say "the rules just say it does this", suspension of disbelief goes to cry in a corner.

And funny that while you claim an interest for an scientific explanation, that you excluded those parts of the F.A.Q. that I quoted. Was it not satisfying enough?^^

It wasn't what I was looking for, because it wasn't the approach I was looking for, and because it doesn't tell me anything new - except maybe that whoever wrote that post went against everything i believe about "fantasy". Starting from "just because it's magic, it's not exhempted from having to make sense", and going all the way to "you can't tell me to imagine a whole new world full of wonders, but then tell me I should stop trying to imagine things".
I don't need a faq to explain what the spell is supposed to do regarding water movement. I know perfectly well what the spell does regarding to water. If nothing else, whether it applies to other liquids and to adhesives would be more interesting, but i'm reasonably certain the answer would be yes too, for reasonable liquids.
If nothing else, I'd borrow a piece from Sanderson's cognitive realm, and say that it works if the liquid sees itself as a liquid - it depends on perception.

I posted a semiserious question. I was expecting people to either start making silly jokes with it, or to come up with some creative way to imagine how FoM may be described. The first outcome may have been a fun read. The second outcome may even have added a touch of color to the campaign.
What I was not expecting was for people to start rules-lawyering. Silly me, I know.
So no, posting FAQs is not a satisfying outcome

P.S. I realize I am sounding like an ungrateful jerk throwing a rant. So let me say that I do appreciate your attempt to help answer a question by fetching a faq - you had good intentions, you misunderstood the question.
As for the rant, though, I am definitely throwing one
P.P.S. I also have to point out for the future, whenever someone asks for scientific explanations of magic, telling them "you must not try, it's magic, just accept what it does" is the worst possible answer you can give them. In the best case, you'll just look like someone who "don't get it" and be ignored. In the worst case, you'll get a rant.
Another piece of advice from Sanderson: "when we use fantasy [intended not as the genre, but as fiction in general], we do better if we root it in things we understand. We create imaginary worlds, but those are rooted in real human feelings and real human interactions. We take something real, we take something we understand, and we build on it. I understand science, and so it comes natural to me to root my magic in scientific thinking". Works for me too.

Tzardok

2021-11-03, 06:45 PM

-
but how would you describe FoM? you try to grab an enemy protected by it, and they... do what?
do they become super slick, their arm sliding frictionless through your grab? do their hand deform like it's made of rubber to get out of manacles? what would be a good description of what's happening?.

Who knows? It could be any of that. It could be propability manipulation: grabs just happen to miss, knots just happen to unravel. It could be a repulsion: things that would bind you just refuse to touch you. It could even be (and that is my prefered option) that however the spell "looks" differs based on the caster. A druid specializing in wind magic becomes as ungrabable as the air. A cleric of Kord feels a sudden burst of strength to break any hold. A cleric of Talona does the opposite and causes weakness in whatever holds him. A cleric of Zarus becomes literally untouchable. And so on.
What all those cosmetic descriptions have in common is that they are, well, cosmetic. They aren't alowed to change the effect of the spell, just like if I allow a player to change the description of their fireball it isn't allowed to produce a covering of napalm or something like that.

Darg

2021-11-03, 10:23 PM

edit: @Darg
That would further imply that you could walk at the ground underwater at full speed while only be allowed to swim at reduced speed.. o.0
Sorry I'm already loosing faith in this interpretation..*help*me*out*^^

I think you are under a misunderstanding how the swim skill works. You aren't swimming at a reduced speed, you are swimming at the normal speed a creature without a swim speed can swim. In the FAQ entry you quoted they even mentioned '“Normal movement” in water is swimming or walking along the bottom.' Swimming is the swim skill or swim speed. Walking along the bottom is exactly as it sounds. Later, they mention that the normal functions of the skill are considered normal movement: 'he makes a Swim check; if he fails, he cannot move, and he sinks if he fails by 5 or more. Note that failing to make progress or sinking are both “normal movement” in this instance."' Earlier in the entry they even said that freedom of movement has no effect on water resistance or friction which further supports that swim checks function normally.

There is nothing in the FAQ entry that supports altering how the swim skill works.

I understand science, and so it comes natural to me to root my magic in scientific thinking". Works for me too.

I think of freedom of movement like a greased pig or a hydrophobic surface. It helps you shake the small stuff and reduces drag, but what it does not do is make a huge difference in our ability to move through water without a surface to propel off of to make use of the reduced drag. Unlike a hydrophobic surface where the water pressure would have adverse effects on the layer of air that reduces drag, FoM does not function any different under higher pressures.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-03, 11:13 PM

I think you are under a misunderstanding how the swim skill works. You aren't swimming at a reduced speed, you are swimming at the normal speed a creature without a swim speed can swim. In the FAQ entry you quoted they even mentioned '“Normal movement” in water is swimming or walking along the bottom.' Swimming is the swim skill or swim speed. Walking along the bottom is exactly as it sounds. Later, they mention that the normal functions of the skill are considered normal movement: 'he makes a Swim check; if he fails, he cannot move, and he sinks if he fails by 5 or more. Note that failing to make progress or sinking are both “normal movement” in this instance."' Earlier in the entry they even said that freedom of movement has no effect on water resistance or friction which further supports that swim checks function normally.

There is nothing in the FAQ entry that supports altering how the swim skill works.

First, I wasn't implying that the swim skill gets altered (at least not that I am aware of it^^).

Your interpretation still implies what I already said. We lack any rules that reduce your walking speed at the ground underwater (at least I'm not aware of any). But we have a rule for reduced movement speed while swimming. Further we have rules for reduced movement speed for difficult terrain (and spells that create those). By your interpretation FoM would only help you against things that would root you in place (no movement at all). Cause the "normal" speed for moving trough difficult terrain is reduced. o.0

An Entangling effect with an anchor could't root a person but would still hamper his movement, since it created difficult terrain and the "normal" movementspeed is hampered there..

Sorry but this all makes lesser sense the more I think about it..

Darg

2021-11-04, 03:51 PM

First, I wasn't implying that the swim skill gets altered (at least not that I am aware of it^^).

Your interpretation still implies what I already said. We lack any rules that reduce your walking speed at the ground underwater (at least I'm not aware of any). But we have a rule for reduced movement speed while swimming. Further we have rules for reduced movement speed for difficult terrain (and spells that create those). By your interpretation FoM would only help you against things that would root you in place (no movement at all). Cause the "normal" speed for moving trough difficult terrain is reduced. o.0

An Entangling effect with an anchor could't root a person but would still hamper his movement, since it created difficult terrain and the "normal" movementspeed is hampered there..

Sorry but this all makes lesser sense the more I think about it..

The rule is that under water you don't use your speed at all. You have to use a swim check or have a swim speed to move. FoM gives you the ability to walk on the sea floor. The swim skill doesn't reduce your speed at all. It enables you to move under water a distance based on your speed. A swim check is a move action or a full-round action. Normal movement while swimming is 1/4 speed for a single move action and 1/2 for a full-round action. Normal movement. I repeat, swimming does not reduce your speed.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-04, 11:44 PM

The rule is that under water you don't use your speed at all. You have to use a swim check or have a swim speed to move. FoM gives you the ability to walk on the sea floor. The swim skill doesn't reduce your speed at all. It enables you to move under water a distance based on your speed. A swim check is a move action or a full-round action. Normal movement while swimming is 1/4 speed for a single move action and 1/2 for a full-round action. Normal movement. I repeat, swimming does not reduce your speed.

1. If I follow you logic, I still end up walking faster at the ground underwater, than I can swim through the water (when FoM is used in both chases).

2. I didn't wanna imply that swimming reduces "your speed" (the movement speed stat on your character sheet remains unchanged). And neither does difficult terrain. Both difficult terrain and swimming lets you move at a reduced speed. I don't see any difference here. Both hamper your movement. The sole difference is that swimming involves a skill roll to have the control over your movement while in water.

Imho the underwater rules are similar to a Grease effect in 3.5. You first need to pass a roll to claim control over your movement. And if you pass the roll you may move at a reduced speed on that terrain. One requires a balance check, the other a swim check, but they work very similar mechanically.

Darg

2021-11-05, 01:00 PM

1. If I follow you logic, I still end up walking faster at the ground underwater, than I can swim through the water (when FoM is used in both chases).

2. I didn't wanna imply that swimming reduces "your speed" (the movement speed stat on your character sheet remains unchanged). And neither does difficult terrain. Both difficult terrain and swimming lets you move at a reduced speed. I don't see any difference here. Both hamper your movement. The sole difference is that swimming involves a skill roll to have the control over your movement while in water.

Imho the underwater rules are similar to a Grease effect in 3.5. You first need to pass a roll to claim control over your movement. And if you pass the roll you may move at a reduced speed on that terrain. One requires a balance check, the other a swim check, but they work very similar mechanically.

1. Exactly, It enables you to move without a swim check on the bottom because you can move with your legs.

2. Difficult terrain hampers movement (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#hamperedMovement). A swim check allows you to move in a way you normally wouldn't. If being in water is considered impeded movement because you can't use normal leg movements to move, being in air would also impede your movement. By extension you would be able to fly by walking in air. Water and air do not impede your movement, you just have an inefficient way to propel yourself through the environment.

I would also argue that grease doesn't impede your movement either. FoM doesn't assist in your ability to balance on precarious surfaces. Precarious surfaces do not slow you or prevent movement. You make the conscious decision to walk slowly to prevent slipping. By taking a -5 to your balance check, you can walk full speed through grease. FoM doesn't protect against telekinesis or bull rush so it has no effect on outside forces other than a grapple.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-05, 08:54 PM

1. Exactly, It enables you to move without a swim check on the bottom because you can move with your legs.

2. Difficult terrain hampers movement (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#hamperedMovement). A swim check allows you to move in a way you normally wouldn't. If being in water is considered impeded movement because you can't use normal leg movements to move, being in air would also impede your movement. By extension you would be able to fly by walking in air. Water and air do not impede your movement, you just have an inefficient way to propel yourself through the environment.

*(3)I would also argue that grease doesn't impede your movement either. FoM doesn't assist in your ability to balance on precarious surfaces. Precarious surfaces do not slow you or prevent movement. You make the conscious decision to walk slowly to prevent slipping. By taking a -5 to your balance check, you can walk full speed through grease. FoM doesn't protect against telekinesis or bull rush so it has no effect on outside forces other than a grapple.
*(3) was added by me for an easier response

1: The problem I have here is that higher walk speed at the ground underwater to swimming. I have a hard time imagining that FoM enables you to walk faster underwater than swimming/diving..

2: I agree here, for the most part, except the last sentence. (sadly FoM doesn't extend to air. the interaction you implied would be funny^^). Imho water does impede (3.5's) normal ground movement and flying movement. By default, you can't walk underwater nor fly. Thus you "normal" movement(-mode) is impeded.

(3): While your argument sounds reasonable, imho you are making the same mistake as mentioned in the FAQ. FoM doesn't tell you anything on how the magical physics behind the effect work. It just tells you what it does by the rules. And that is:

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally
If by the interpretation of the FAQ, FoM eliminates the need for swim checks underwater, it should also eliminate any kind skill checks you might need for your "normal" movement on the ground or while airborne.

______

(4) so, let my try out an example to see if I got this right:

We assume a creature with a ground and fly speed, but without a swim speed.

This creature could (with FoM) walk at full speed at the ground underwater; swim (without a skill check) at reduced speed; or fly at full speed underwater.

Is this what we are agreeing on?

Darg

2021-11-06, 12:50 AM

*(3) was added by me for an easier response

1: The problem I have here is that higher walk speed at the ground underwater to swimming. I have a hard time imagining that FoM enables you to walk faster underwater than swimming/diving..

2: I agree here, for the most part, except the last sentence. (sadly FoM doesn't extend to air. the interaction you implied would be funny^^). Imho water does impede (3.5's) normal ground movement and flying movement. By default, you can't walk underwater nor fly. Thus you "normal" movement(-mode) is impeded.

(3): While your argument sounds reasonable, imho you are making the same mistake as mentioned in the FAQ. FoM doesn't tell you anything on how the magical physics behind the effect work. It just tells you what it does by the rules. And that is:

If by the interpretation of the FAQ, FoM eliminates the need for swim checks underwater, it should also eliminate any kind skill checks you might need for your "normal" movement on the ground or while airborne.

______

(4) so, let my try out an example to see if I got this right:

We assume a creature with a ground and fly speed, but without a swim speed.

This creature could (with FoM) walk at full speed at the ground underwater; swim (without a skill check) at reduced speed; or fly at full speed underwater.

Is this what we are agreeing on?

1. You have ground to walk on. FoM is magic, and magic logic can be bound by the mechanical structure of the game just as much as it is bound by the setting within which it resides. Personally, I am only saying that you get full movement on the sea floor for QoL reasons only and the FAQ you quoted says that is how it works. My groups don't allow movement on the sea floor without swim checks, but we also use the rule that you can touch up to 6 allies when you hold the charge. There are ways to get swim speeds as needed.

2. If water impedes movement, so would walls or any other obstacle. It is really stretching to say that water water slows you down and therefore you can ignore it.

3. If we want to put "physics" behind it, we can just say it helps you slide through water. While you can glide through water more easily, your hands and feat also cut through more easily and aren't able to generate as much thrust because of it. In this way you retain the swim skill speed and are able to attack normally.

4.It's what the FAQ says. I tend to ignore the FAQ for the most part and how I play is in number 1. Fly speeds specifically require air to move in. I personally wouldn't allow it, but I guess by RAW if you have a bubble of air around you you can fly in water.

icefractal

2021-11-06, 04:23 AM

How Freedom of Movement "works" is an interesting question. Here's my thoughts on it, based on the spell's effects:

1) The spell is Abjuration. That doesn't tell us much but it does imply that some forms of effect are more likely than others. For example, the anti-grapple property is more likely to be a repulsive force than a change to the user's body (making it ooze-like).

2) Given how broad the effects would need to be to escape all forms of restraint, and how the spell doesn't let you do things like frictionless ground-sliding or squeezing through tiny gaps or bull-rushing people any better, and that it doesn't prevent you (for example) holding on to objects in your hands, I don't think the effect can be continuously active or directly controllable by the user. Rather, it kicks in automatically when and only when you're restrained.

3) Based on this, I think a combination of frictionless-ness and a short-range repulsive force cover all the listed uses.

4) Except paralysis. How the hell does that one work? Abjuration is the school of Dispel and AMF, so it could be read as it suppresses those effects. Which would fit with only stopping magical ones (pretty sure that by RAW, it doesn't do **** against a non-magical poison which causes paralysis).

5) So it seems like at least two effects are involved - suppression of movement-impeding magic (but only on the target themselves, no anyone nearby) and a force-field which is only intermittently activated but provides both friction-reduction and when necessary repulsion (to force a grappler's arms open when there isn't enough room to just slide out, seems necessary since it works to escape even a pin).

Now an alternate view is that this is a metaphysical effect rather than a physical one. That it's affecting Fate itself so that you cannot be impeded. It's hard to say if this is the case based on school, because there aren't many effects that explicitly do things like that, and they're spread across several schools.

If so, then the physical effects could vary from instance to instance, or even not make physical sense at all. Like: "The vines wrapped around Bob's legs the moment he stepped forward, surrounding him entirely within seconds. And then somehow he was beyond them, still walking - no vines had broken, nobody saw him wriggle free, but regardless there he was on the other side."

ShurikVch

2021-11-06, 12:32 PM

Now an alternate view is that this is a metaphysical effect rather than a physical one. That it's affecting Fate itself so that you cannot be impeded.
What, like Juggernaut from Marvel (can't be stopped while moving)?
Except he was, actually, stopped once - by the Hulk...

Doctor Despair

2021-11-06, 02:24 PM

I suppose I'll chime in with my own interpretation of the wording since there appears to be no clear consensus among those in this thread:

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

So you can:

Unambiguously move and attack "normally," for a given value of "normal."

Ignore the effects of magic that "impedes movement," for a give value of "impede."

Win any grapple check to resist a grapple or escape a grapple or pin (not not resist a pin, funnily enough).

Move and attack "normally" while underwater, again for a given value of "normal."

I think to define "normal," it's important to note what they specifically call out as other effects of the spell.

Moving and attacking underwater would presumably NOT have been included under normal movement, as it was included as a separate effect using "also" rather than a clarifying "such as." This suggests, to my eye, that nonmagical physical barriers (e.g. gravity, manacles, ropes, physical walls, locked doors, etc) would not be able to be bypassed using the FoM spell. Grappling is also called out, and although it is without a helpful "also" to identify it as a separate effect, it is listed in a separate clause, so that same logic (i.e. it is a nonmagical barrier) could apply here.

Moving "normally" would then mean that one can ignore the effects of magic that would impede movement, and indeed, these two effects are the only ones listed in the same clause (and indeed, the second effect is specifically a subset of the first). However, now we have to answer: what constitutes impeding movement? Would a character with FoM be able to walk through a Wall of Force as if it weren't there? If we look at the sample abilities we have:

* Solid Fog, a duration-limited magical form of crowd control that slows movement. It is pretty clear that normal movement here would mean not being slowed, so FoM must allow characters to avoid having their speed reduced by duration-limited magical barriers.

* Web, a duration-limited magical form of crowd control that stops movement without a successful check, then slows movement thereafter. Based on the inclusion of Solid Fog, it seems clear that the FoM'd character would ignore the speed reduction. It is unclear whether this means the character would not have to make the check to break free initially, but given the common sense definition of "normal," I think both would apply. Normally, a character would be able to walk at their movement speed through the area if the web weren't there. This would logically apply to similar spells like Entangle, but what about Wall of Force?

Wall of Force is a duration-limited magical barrier that stops movement in one direction. Unlike Web, it doesn't confer a status condition (entangled), but neither does solid fog. I think there is a case to be made that FoM would allow you to walk through it as if it weren't there. If you were to walk through it, would it count as breaking the surface? The wall is explicitly unaffected by most spells, but at that point it is a creature interacting with it affected by a spell, not the spell itself...

Wall of Stone and other instantaneous barriers, on the other hand, create nonmagical barriers, which we've established are not bypassed by FoM.

* Paralysis. This is an odd-ball because the spell lists it as "magic that normally impeded movement," but there is no spell by that name. There are a number of spells that confer that effect, as well as poisons and other nonmagical effects. I think the intention is probably that magical sources of paralysis are suppressed, but nonmagical ones are not. Let's examine the text for paralysis:

This special attack renders the victim immobile. Paralyzed creatures cannot move, speak, or take any physical actions. The creature is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components. Paralysis works on the body, and a character can usually resist it with a Fortitude saving throw (the DC is given in the creature’s description). Unlike hold person and similar effects, a paralysis effect does not allow a new save each round. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown.

Essentially, this is a condition, like entangled, that prevents movement. However, it doesn't prevent mental actions; it is a physical restraint. I think this is a notable call-out, as it didn't include the core spell "sleep" or anything similar, but instead the condition "paralysis." Spells like Dominate Person or what have you are not physical restraints, but rather mental ones, so those would not be prevented. Likewise, FoM would not protect the character from magical sources of confusion, fascination, fear, dazing, stunning, turning, or unconsciousness. However, it would prevent the character's spell or actions from being affected by magical sources of blinding, being blown away, being checked, fatigue/exhaustion, flat-footedness, being knocked down, nauseated, paralyzed, petrified, or sickened.

So I suppose to circle back to whether you can swim at full movement... Having established that "normally" means, in the context of this spell, ignoring magical effects that physically stop you from moving, that line would basically read: this spell also applies underwater, but the normal limitation regarding slashing weapons doesn't apply. However, the table on the page for "Aquatic Terrain" tells us that Freedom of Movement's "normal movement" is as compared to "half" or "quarter." It also allows the FoM'd character, if they are standing on land, to ignore the benefits of cover that someone in water would normally have. This clarifies things for us: a character with FoM still makes swim checks, but moves at their full speed instead of half or a quarter on a successful check. Additionally, they could presumably use ranged weapons normally, too, as it seems very permissive with regard to how the spell interacts with water and attacks. As FoM doesn't normally interact with nonmagical means of affecting or limiting movement, however, the penalties of a failed swim check (i.e. lack of movement or sinking) would still apply on a failed check. However, at the bottom, presumably the character with FoM would walk at their full movement speed, as FoM is listed separately from the other swimming conditions.

I am very reluctant to go down the rabbit hole of allowing someone with FoM to ignore swim checks entirely because if the spell allows "normal movement" in that respect with regard to nonmagical physical barriers, it means that a character could literally ignore gravity or nonmagical stone walls or what have you, basically granting all the benefits of incorporeality, and I don't think that's what the designers intended, nor do I think it's balanced. Normal movement means you need a swim check to move through water, but the spell specifically allows you to retain your full speed when doing so. Outside of that, the spell only interacts with magical forms of restricted movement, so manacles, ropes, and so on still work, but a character with FoM could ignore the manacles made from Word of Binding, ignore the entangling webs or vines from those respective spells, ignore magical physical restraints, and possibly walk through magically-created-and-sustained barriers like Wall of Force or Forcecage.

Darg

2021-11-06, 06:14 PM

Normal movement means you need a swim check to move through water, but the spell specifically allows you to retain your full speed when doing so.

It says nothing about moving at full speed underwater. A creature without a swim speed would normally move 1/4 speed per move action. Were it to move at full speed that would be extraordinary movement in water if they don't have a swim speed.

Doctor Despair

2021-11-06, 10:48 PM

It says nothing about moving at full speed underwater. A creature without a swim speed would normally move 1/4 speed per move action. Were it to move at full speed that would be extraordinary movement in water if they don't have a swim speed.

In the SRD, under Aquatic Terrain, there is a chart:

Attack/Damage
Attack/Damage

Condition
Slashing or Bludgeoning
Tail
Movement
Off Balance

Freedom of movement
normal/normal
normal/normal
normal
No

Has a swim speed
-2/half
normal
normal
No

Successful Swim check
-2/half
-2/half
quarter or half
No

Firm footing
-2/half
-2/half
half
No

None of the above
-2/half
-2/half
normal
Yes

Again, it specifies that the movement is normal relative to the movement being quarter or half with a successful swim check. In that context, I don't think there's any other way to interpret the way "normal" is used with regard to moving through water, I'm afraid.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-06, 11:36 PM

I would like to point out how the word "even" effects the rules mechanically here:

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.

"Even", doesn't create another effect here. It shows how far the already mentioned rule's effect extends. It refers to "move and attack normally".
Imho it tells you to ignore any kind of stuff that impedes movement, even magical. It includes non-magical stuff that impedes movement too.

Water is noted as specific exception, because your other movement modes wouldn't allow you to move there normally at all. That is not within their territory/definition. That is the reason why FoM needs to create a specific exception for that (a secondary effect in the spell text).

Thus as I said in my original statement here, I think that FoM enables you to freely move at you full speed, despite the circumstances (unless you are simply falling down).

That's at least my humble interpretation here.

Doctor Despair

2021-11-06, 11:43 PM

I would like to point out how the word "even" effects the rules mechanically here:

"Even", doesn't create another effect here. It shows how far the already mentioned rule's effect extends. It refers to "move and attack normally".
Imho it tells you to ignore any kind of stuff that impedes movement, even magical. It includes non-magical stuff that impedes movement too.

Edit: To be fair, I like that it sidesteps the "walking through Wall of Force" issue

Water is noted as specific exception, because your other movement modes wouldn't allow you to move there normally at all. That is not within their territory/definition. That is the reason why FoM needs to create a specific exception for that (a secondary effect in the spell text).

Thus as I said in my original statement here, I think that FoM enables you to freely move at you full speed, despite the circumstances (unless you are simply falling down).

That's at least my humble interpretation here.

You'd need a burrow speed to move through dirt, then, and just wouldn't be able to move through physical objects like rock, walls, doors, or manacles then, if we are to use the "you need a movement mode for that" reading.

I'd still say mental effects like confusion, fear, dazing, domination, etc wouldn't be protected against, as it called out paralysis as its representative example, although expanding the spell to protect against nonmagical sources of those conditions would be helpful.

Darg

2021-11-07, 01:12 AM

In the SRD, under Aquatic Terrain, there is a chart:

Attack/Damage
Attack/Damage

Condition
Slashing or Bludgeoning
Tail
Movement
Off Balance

Freedom of movement
normal/normal
normal/normal
normal
No

Has a swim speed
-2/half
normal
normal
No

Successful Swim check
-2/half
-2/half
quarter or half
No

Firm footing
-2/half
-2/half
half
No

None of the above
-2/half
-2/half
normal
Yes

Again, it specifies that the movement is normal relative to the movement being quarter or half with a successful swim check. In that context, I don't think there's any other way to interpret the way "normal" is used with regard to moving through water, I'm afraid.

If we went with your interpretation of the table it negates any need for a swim check, no? I would also like to point out that the None of the above entry is the only one that is off balance. Under the table (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#underwaterCombat) by the 4 denoting off balance it has this to say:

Creatures flailing about in the water (usually because they failed their Swim checks) have a hard time fighting effectively. An off-balance creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and opponents gain a +2 bonus on attacks against it.

So a flailing creature which is usually because they failed a swim check has normal speed even though they can't move/sink. Personally I think it's even more evidence that FoM doesn't alter swim check movement.

Jay R

2021-11-09, 12:14 PM

I would rule that Freedom of Movement lets you walk on the bottom as you would walk through air, at normal walking speed. A swim check lets you move through the water at any depth, at swimming speed.

And I think most DMs would rule similarly.

A lot of this discussion appears to be trying to play word games with the rules to suggest a result that is not clearly specified in the rules, and that most DMs would disallow.

If the rule is not clear, then the DM will make a ruling.

Remuko

2021-11-09, 01:54 PM

InvisibleBison

2021-11-09, 04:26 PM

I agree with this. moving normally means normally. Swimming at 1/4 or 1/2 your speed IS normally for a creature without a swim speed. I really don't think this is as complicated as people make it sound.

The problem with this reasoning is that it leads to freedom of movement not doing anything. Normal movement through difficult terrain is at half your speed; normal movement through solid fog is 5 feet per round; normal movement for someone who's paralyzed is no movement at all. I think it makes more sense to say that "move and attack normally" means "move and attack as if there was nothing impeding your ability to move and attack".

Jay R

2021-11-09, 05:29 PM

The problem with this reasoning is that it leads to freedom of movement not doing anything.

No; it means that you can walk or run at normal walking or running speed -- even at the bottom of a lake.

Normal movement through difficult terrain is at half your speed; normal movement through solid fog is 5 feet per round; normal movement for someone who's paralyzed is no movement at all.

Yes, and being able to walk or run through those at "normal" speed is the purpose of the spell. You still can't justify making "move at normal speed" mean "swim at a speed you can't swim normally".

Normal movement through difficult terrain is at half your speed; normal movement through solid fog is 5 feet per round; normal movement for someone who's paralyzed is no movement at all. I think it makes more sense to say that "move and attack normally" means "move and attack as if there was nothing impeding your ability to move and attack".

Agreed. Which means walking at walking speed (at the lake-or sea-bottom), or swimming at normal swimming speed.

Freedom of Movement allows you to swim at your normal swimming speed through grappling fronds, or the tentacles of an octopus, or even in a highly viscous liquid like syrup.

But "move ... normally" has to mean:

walk at your normal walking speed;
run at your normal running speed;
charge at your normal charging speed;
and, yes, swim at your normal swimming speed.

ShurikVch

2021-11-09, 08:27 PM

Question: should FoM allow to swim by waterfall upward - if you can't do it without the spell?

Darg

2021-11-09, 10:29 PM

Question: should FoM allow to swim by waterfall upward - if you can't do it without the spell?

Rhetorical, but I'll bite. Yes, it should. As long as you define upward as the direction of gravity.

Vaern

2021-11-10, 07:11 PM

Freedom of Movement allows you to swim at your normal swimming speed ... in a highly viscous liquid like syrup.

It doesn't say anything about swimming at normal swimming speed. It says you move normally under water, which would include swimming. However, as far as the text is concerned, it does nothing in other forms of liquid - it does not allow you to retain your full swimming speed in syrup.

Segev

2021-11-11, 08:58 AM

In what I think is the spirit the OP has expressed he wants this analyzed, I would say that freedom of movement does what its title implies: lets you move freely. It doesn't make you able to phase through matter, so you're not going to be able to walk through walls or dive into the floor, but if you could move but just be impeded, you can instead move without impediment. I would go so far as to say that, if your game would let you swim in lava (assuming the fire damage was survivable), you can now swim in that lava without impediment to your movement. Including swinging a maul with full force and momentum and accuracy.

I would, personally, not allow mimic adhesive nor technical wording on pins/crushes to bypass it; there's no real difference between these and being tied by a rope held by an enemy, and you could slip out of that rope just fine with this spell.

To contain somebody under the effects of freedom of movement, you need to constrain to where they can move, not their ability to move. This distinction sounds subtle, but it really isn't unless you're getting into liminal cases that fuzz the boundary. A wall restricts you from moving into its space; a manacle restricts your ability to move. Burying somebody alive is a liminal case; I'd probably permit the person under the effects of freedom of movement to move about "in his space" while being unable to exit it, much like a specter is unable to go more than five feet into a cliff face.

Doctor Despair

2021-11-11, 09:13 AM

I would, personally, not allow mimic adhesive nor technical wording on pins/crushes to bypass it; there's no real difference between these and being tied by a rope held by an enemy, and you could slip out of that rope just fine with this spell.

To contain somebody under the effects of freedom of movement, you need to constrain to where they can move, not their ability to move. This distinction sounds subtle, but it really isn't unless you're getting into liminal cases that fuzz the boundary. A wall restricts you from moving into its space; a manacle restricts your ability to move. Burying somebody alive is a liminal case; I'd probably permit the person under the effects of freedom of movement to move about "in his space" while being unable to exit it, much like a specter is unable to go more than five feet into a cliff face.

I'd disagree with this interpretation wholeheartedly. If you can move through the manacles or ropes or what have you, you can move through physical objects, and that includes walls, floors, etc.

With regard to mimic Adhesive, the spell allows you to break free on your action, but you are indisputably grappled until you take that action, as there's no opposed check for you to pass.

RAI could go either way on any of these effects since the spell is so poorly broadly worded.

Segev

2021-11-11, 09:29 AM

I'd disagree with this interpretation wholeheartedly. If you can move through the manacles or ropes or what have you, you can move through physical objects, and that includes walls, floors, etc.

With regard to mimic Adhesive, the spell allows you to break free on your action, but you are indisputably grappled until you take that action, as there's no opposed check for you to pass.

RAI could go either way on any of these effects since the spell is so poorly broadly worded.

I think you are not picturing the escape from manacles and ropes as I am. I am not envisioning phasing through them, but rather sort of "blorp"ing out of them. Whether this involves ooze-like motion, magically-augmented disjointing, the ropes magically loosening, or a distortion of space such that there's more room inside them for you to wriggle out than there should be, they impede you not at all, falling off or otherwise allowing you to slip out.

At no point, however, do you and the rope pass through each other in the manner of incorporeal things.

Or am I misunderstanding you, and you aren't objecting based on a notion of phasing through the restraints? If so, could you please clarify or expand upon your objection?

Doctor Despair

2021-11-11, 11:15 AM

I think you are not picturing the escape from manacles and ropes as I am. I am not envisioning phasing through them, but rather sort of "blorp"ing out of them. Whether this involves ooze-like motion, magically-augmented disjointing, the ropes magically loosening, or a distortion of space such that there's more room inside them for you to wriggle out than there should be, they impede you not at all, falling off or otherwise allowing you to slip out.

At no point, however, do you and the rope pass through each other in the manner of incorporeal things.

Or am I misunderstanding you, and you aren't objecting based on a notion of phasing through the restraints? If so, could you please clarify or expand upon your objection?

Consider the issue this way.

If you come up to a stone wall with no crevasses or cracks, it should be impossible to pass through it normally. With FoM, there is no exception.

If there is a hole as little as 2 square inches (a square hole with each side being 1.4142 inches in length), however, a medium creature can make an escape artist to wriggle through that square. I don't believe FoM should allow a character to "move normally" through that hole without making a successful DC 80 escape artist check.

Along that same line of thought, a wall of force is a DC 120 escape artist check to wriggle through. I don't believe FoM should allow a character to "move normally" through a wall of force as if it weren't there.

Manacles are a DC30 (varies by manacle) escape artist check to get through. I don't believe FoM should allow a character to "move normally" without making that check.

Manacles and squeezing through spaces, under Escape Artist, are distinct from escaping from a grapple or pin, and are distinct from escaping from nets, animate rope, commanded/controlled plants, and entangles.

Manacles and tight spaces take 1 minute of work to wriggle out of.

The entangle-tree of restraints requires 1 full round action.

A grapple requires a standard action.

FoM calls out moving normally through the effects that require 1 full round action or less to ignore, and calls out automatically succeeding on grapple checks. It doesn't speak to the subject's ability to walk through tight spaces or throw off manacles; it doesn't speak to the subject being able to automatically pass escape artist checks. In the absence of that language, I don't think the spell should allow the character to "blorp" out of their manacles or through a wall.

I just don't see a reasoning that allows a character to use FoM to supernaturally escape their manacles (an effect not listed in the spell) that doesn't open the door to supernaturally diving through 2-square-inch holes, or walking through walls of force, etc. Normally, they wouldn't be able to move their body through manacles or walls or what have you. In allowing "normal" movement, the spell shouldn't allow it either.

..

Actually, as I look at the wording of Web and Entangle, I'm realizing there's a more restrictive reading no one's seemed to devote time to yet.

Web requires a strength or escape artist check to break loose. Then, you are entangled and may move very slowly at a rate of 5 ft for every 10 points you exceed the DC by.

Entangle requires a strength or escape artist check to break loose. Then, you are free and may move very slowly at half your movement speed.

Solid Fog restricts your movement to 5 ft per move action.

Paralysis, the odd ball, could be seen as reducing your speed to 0.

Arguably, the spell wouldn't negate the need to make those checks, but would allow you to move your normal speed regardless of those effects after making the appropriate checks to see if you may take that movement action at all. This would then mesh quite well with the reading that you still make a swim check, but then move your normal speed through the water after a successful check (even to the point where you can attack with slashing weapons), or may walk at full speed along the bottom.

With regard to swimming through hyper-viscous liquids like pitch, a creature that does not have Freedom of Movement active cannot swim in pitch. If they could attempt the check to swim through pitch, they would fail by 5 or more, instantly sink to the bottom, and be unable to ever emerge again. As such, I'd imagine FoM wouldn't interact the way people are hoping; as others have said, the "liquids" probably act as a solid for the purposes of the game.

Jay R

2021-11-11, 01:15 PM

It's clear that there is no complete agreement on what the rules mean.

Therefore this is a DM judgment call. Different DMs will rule differently, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Here are the actual rules

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

As I read these words, there are three separate mechanical effects:

movement and attacks are not affected by magic that usually impedes movement,
Automatic success on grapple checks, or Escape Artist checks against grapples and pins, and
Move and attack normally underwater.

There are three areas that seem open to ambiguity (even if I think that ambiguity is forced in one case).

Does it also protect against non-magical effects that impeded movement?
What checks are automatic?
What does “move and attack normally” mean underwater.?

Here my interpretations for those two areas:

Non-Magical effects: many spells protect against magical and non-magical effects. They tend to specifically mention both. This one doesn’t. Therefore I assume that it doesn’t protect against things it doesn’t say it protects against. [From a simulationist viewpoint, I assume that this Abjuration spell is keeping the magic from working against you.]
You can make grapple checks automatically, as well as Escape Artist checks to break a grapple or pin, but not Use Rope checks or any other Escape Artist checks. Therefore is does not get you out of ropes or manacles or cells.
“Move and attack normally” underwater cannot mean the way you normally would move and attack underwater, because that doesn’t include using slashing or bludgeoning weapons. Therefore I conclude that it means you can move and attack underwater as if you were on land. That means swinging swords and maces, and walking and running at normal walking and running speed on the sea- or lake-bottom.

You can certainly swim at your normal swim speed, because you can do this even without the spell.

I might allow a PC to move through tall grasses and the like at his normal speed, but the limits of its effect on non-magical situations would be very limited – usually just things I could vaguely interpret as a grapple check. It would not work on anything that is unambiguously a Use Rope check or an Escape Artist check (other than escaping a grapple or pin).

That’s how it would work in my game. I recognize that this is a DM ruling. Making rulings is a DM’s job. Another DM could easily rule otherwise.

[I]And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Segev

2021-11-11, 02:36 PM

Consider the issue this way.

I could argue the RAW with you, but at the moment, in the post I made that started our exchange, I was responding to the OP's request for a more holistic, game-world level examination. He explicitly said he's less interested in rule-specifics and more in a way of thinking about how it works in principle.

I understand your principle divisions, here, but I do not agree that they're useful given what freedom of movement says it does, and what I believe its intended role is.

To me, freedom of movement will not let you crawl through a crack you can't fit through, nor penetrate a wall of force, because the epic skill usages are their own practically-magic that enable such impossible feats. Freedom of movement permits escape from pinning, grappling, manacles, ropes, etc., because those are restraints, rather than obstructions, and freedom of movement is (nearly) absolute for restraints but does little for obstructions. If you can squeeze slowly through a gap, freedom of movement in principle should, to my mind, let you slip through it as easily as you would a corridor as broad as your spacing. But if it takes an epic skill check, that's a completely different matter.

Doctor Despair

2021-11-11, 03:13 PM

If you can squeeze slowly through a gap, freedom of movement in principle should, to my mind, let you slip through it as easily as you would a corridor as broad as your spacing. But if it takes an epic skill check, that's a completely different matter.

I'm not sure I agree that the epic checks should be looked at any differently than the non-epic checks required for slipping out of manacles or ropes. To me, freedom of movement will not let you crawl through a crack you can't fit through, nor penetrate a wall of force, nor swim as if you had a swim speed because the skill usages are their own practically-available tools that enable such feats. Freedom of movement permits escape from pinning and grappling, normal movement in the water, and normal movement out of the water. Normal movement is poorly defined, as we've established in the thread, but there's room to pin down (pun intended) its meaning from the examples we are given.

In principle? The verisimilitude isn't broken by the more restrictive reading.

Freedom of Movement doesn't let you move when you normally wouldn't be able to move, or in ways you normally wouldn't be able to move. This means no flying without a fly speed, burrowing without a burrow speed, swimming without a swim speed, walking through walls, phasing through obstacles (whether they be ropes, manacles, doors, vines, webs, bushes, etc). You need to make swim checks to swim, escape artist checks to move through tight spaces, manacles or ropes, make strength/escape artist checks to break free of webs and entangling vines, and make grapple/escape artist checks to break free of pins and grapples (the last of which you automatically succeed in).

When you ARE able to move, Freedom of Movement allows you to move at your full speed. When you move through the water, you move as though it weren't slowing or "impeding" your movement; this includes walking at full speed along the bottom, or swimming at full speed if you are able to make that swim check. When you break free of the webs and go to walk, you may do so without being slowed. When you attempt to walk while paralyzed, you do so at your full speed instead of your effective speed of 0.

When you are NOT able to move due to a failed check, you enjoy no benefits from FoM save for the ability to attack as if your body's movement weren't slowed by your surroundings.

This reading uses "normally" as "at your normal speed" instead of "as if there were no barriers or obstructions preventing your movement", and uses "impedes movement" as "slows or reduces movement."

A strength of this reading: it reconciles why you ignore the check to break free of web/entangle/etc but not the check to break free of grapples (i.e. you don't; you must attempt both checks, and automatically succeed on the grapple check). It reconciles why FoM would stop magic from impeding your movement and water, but not other mundane conditions (i.e. it helps with any conditions that would impede your movement, but uses "slows/reduces" as the working definition of "impedes").

...

Of course, if your RAI is different, that's fine, but I do think that the broader we interpret it, the more likely it is that we allows characters to use escape artist in problematic ways. If a character can automatically succeed on the check to ignore their manacles and walk through them as if they weren't there (regardless of how we imagine it happening), they can do the same to the 1.5x1.5inch hole in the wall, or the wall of force. The way it's worded with "move normally" could be interpreted as broadly as allowing a character to literally enjoy the benefits of incorporeality and walking straight through walls even without the 1.5x1.5inch hole; it could also be interpreted as strictly as only protecting against magical effects, grapples, and water, and nothing else.

Personally, I like the interpretation where it allows full speed movement, but doesn't circumvent physical barriers. It breaks my verisimilitude a lot less than a character "blorp"ing out of manacles and through holes in the wall when there are other (higher level) effects that allow that already.

Segev

2021-11-11, 03:21 PM

I'm not sure I agree that the epic checks should be looked at any differently than the non-epic checks required for slipping out of manacles or ropes. To me, freedom of movement will not let you crawl through a crack you can't fit through, nor penetrate a wall of force, nor swim as if you had a swim speed because the skill usages are their own practically-available tools that enable such feats. Freedom of movement permits escape from pinning and grappling, normal movement in the water, and normal movement out of the water. Normal movement is poorly defined, as we've established in the thread, but there's room to pin down (pun intended) its meaning from the examples we are given.

If I follow this principle to its logical conclusion, though, freedom of movement should never do anything. There's no more reason to assume that you can slip from an ogre's grasp than you can from a tightly-bound chain-and-manacles.

In principle, freedom of movement allows you to ignore restraint to your movement. It does not allow you to move into spaces you otherwise couldn't.

hamishspence

2021-11-11, 03:36 PM

The spell does specifically state:

"The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin."

but it doesn't specifically state that other Escape Artist checks automatically succeed.

You are pinned by an ogre, cast a Stilled Freedom of Movement spell, and then make grapple check to escape pin - auto-succeed.

You are knocked out and tied up very well by aforesaid ogre - you wake up and cast Stilled Freedom of Movement - then make an Escape Artist check against the ropes - what happens? I'd say that the RAW suggests that it does not auto-succeed and that nothing happens if you fail the check.

Being tied up, or manacled, is not "a grapple" or "a pin".

* Use Crush to render them pinned! Again, there is no grapple check to resist. It is only usable on opponents three size categories smaller than you, so ymmv.

Maintaining the pin counts as a normal grapple attack, so a Crushed character with the spell already active on them, can escape it, as can one who, while Crushed, casts a Stilled version of the spell.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm

Crush attacks are effective only against opponents three or more size categories smaller than the dragon (though it can attempt normal overrun or grapple attacks against larger opponents).

A crush attack affects as many creatures as can fit under the dragon’s body. Creatures in the affected area must succeed on a Reflex save (DC equal to that of the dragon’s breath weapon) or be pinned, automatically taking bludgeoning damage during the next round unless the dragon moves off them. If the dragon chooses to maintain the pin, treat it as a normal grapple attack. Pinned opponents take damage from the crush each round if they don’t escape.